A statement and weirdly a who’s who as well.

It seems to be a PR related statement. For example, OpenAI's Sam Altman has signed it but is as far as I can understand very resistant to actual measures to deal with possible risks.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. He favors government oversight and licensing. Arguably, that would entrench companies with deep pockets, but it's also a totally reasonable idea.

> He favors government oversight and licensing.

No, he favors thing that benefit him

> "The current draft of the EU AI Act would be over-regulating, but we have heard it's going to get pulled back," he told Reuters. "They are still talking about it."

And really, what we'll see is the current EU AI Act as-is is probably not strong enough and we'll almost certainly see the need for more in the future.

Right now, he's openly calling for regulation. That's a verifiable fact.

It's very possible that when specific proposals are on the table, that we'll see Altman become uncooperative with respect to things that don't fit into his self-interest. But until that happens, you're just speculating.

He's not saying "please regulate me!" He's saying "Please regulate my competitors!"

I see no reason to assume benign motives on his part. In fact there is every reason to believe the opposite.

It's simply not correct that he is asking only for his competitors to be regulated, and it's extremely well documented. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-6561686

Boiling it down to a single sentence reduces ambiguity. Also, given that AI x-risk analysis is essentially pre-paradigmatic, many of the signatories probably disagree about the details.